The T-34 was a Sovietmedium tank which had a profound and lasting effect on the fields of tank tactics and design. First fielded in 1940, it has often been described as the most effective, efficient, and influential tank design of World War II.[3][4] At its introduction, the T-34 possessed an unprecedented combination of firepower, mobility, protection, and ruggedness. Its 76.2 mm (3 in) high-velocity tank gun provided a substantial increase in firepower over any of the T-34's contemporaries;[5] its heavy sloped armour was difficult to penetrate by most contemporary anti-tank weapons, and furthermore it was very agile. Though its armour and armament were surpassed later in the war, when they first encountered it in battle in 1941 German tank general von Kleist called it "the finest tank in the world"[6] and Heinz Guderian confirmed the T-34's "vast superiority" over German armour.[7]

The T-34 was the mainstay of Soviet armoured forces throughout World War II. The design and construction of the tank were continuously refined during the war to enhance effectiveness and decrease costs, allowing steadily greater numbers of T-34s to be fielded despite heavy losses. It was the most-produced tank of the war, and the second most-produced tank of all time after its successor, the T-54/55 series.[8] By the end of the war in 1945, the T-34 had replaced many light and heavy tanks in Red Army service. It accounted for the majority of Soviet tank production, and following the war it was widely exported. Its evolutionary development led directly to the T-54/55 series of tanks, built until 1981 and still operational as of 2013[update] and which itself led to the T-62, T-72, and T-90 tanks which, along with several Chinese tanks based on the T-55, form the backbone of many armies even today. In 1996, T-34 variants were still in service in at least 27 countries.

In 1939, the most numerous Soviet tank models were the T-26 infantry tank and the BT series of fast tanks. The T-26 was slow-moving, designed to keep pace with infantry on the ground. The BT tanks were cavalry tanks: fast-moving and light, designed for manoeuvre warfare. Both were Soviet developments of foreign designs from the early 1930s; the T-26 was based on the British Vickers 6-Ton, and the BT tanks were based on a design from American engineer Walter Christie.[9] Both were lightly armoured like their foreign counterparts, proof against small arms but not anti-tank rifles or 37 mm (1.46 in) anti-tank guns, but both were armed with a 45 mm (1.77 in) gun, which was a significant improvement.

During the Battle of Lake Khasan in July 1938 and the Battles of Khalkhin Gol in 1939, an undeclared border war with Japan on the frontier with occupied Manchuria, the Soviets deployed nearly 500[10] T-26, BT-5, and BT-7 tanks against the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA). Although the IJA Type 95 Ha-Go light tanks had diesel engines,[11] the T-26 and BT tanks did not. Their petrol engines, commonly used in tank designs by most nations at the time, often burst into flames when hit by IJA tank-killer teams[12] using Molotov cocktails. Poor quality welds in the Soviet armour plates left small gaps between the plates, and flaming petrol from the Molotov cocktails easily seeped into the fighting and engine compartment; portions of the armour plating that had been assembled with rivets also proved to be vulnerable.[13] The Soviet tanks were also easily destroyed by the Japanese Type 95 tank's 37 mm gunfire, despite the low velocity of that gun,[14] or "at any other slightest provocation."[15] The use of riveted armour led to a problem called "spalling", whereby the impact of enemy shells, even if they failed to disable the tank or kill the crew on their own, would cause the rivets to break off and become projectiles inside the tank.

In 1937, before these battles with the Japanese Army, the Red Army had assigned engineer Mikhail Koshkin to lead a new team to design a replacement for the BT tanks at the Kharkiv Komintern Locomotive Plant (KhPZ). The prototype tank, designated A-20, was specified with 20 mm (0.8 in) of armour, a 45 mm (1.77 in) gun, and the new Model V-2-34 engine, using less-flammable diesel fuel in a V12 configuration designed by Konstantin Chelpan. It also had an 8×6-wheel convertible drive similar to the BT tank's 8×2, which allowed it to run on wheels without caterpillar tracks.[16] This feature had greatly saved on maintenance and repair of the unreliable tank tracks of the early 1930s, and allowed tanks to exceed 85 kilometres per hour (53 mph) on roads, but gave no advantage in combat and was very complicated for Red Army mechanics to maintain. By 1937-38, track design had improved and the designers considered it a waste of space, weight and maintenance resources, despite the road speed advantage.[17] The A-20 also incorporated previous research (BT-IS and BT-SW-2 projects) into sloped armour: its all-round sloped armour plates were more likely to deflect rounds than perpendicular armour.[18]

Medium tank A-32

After the battles with the Japanese Army, Koshkin convinced Soviet leader Joseph Stalin to let him develop a second prototype, a more heavily armed and armoured "universal tank" which reflected the lessons learned in those battles, and could replace both the T-26 and the BT tanks. Koshkin named the second prototype A-32, after its 32 mm (1.3 in) of frontal armour. It had an L-10 76.2 mm (3 in) gun, and the same Model V-2-34 diesel.[19] Both were tested in field trials at Kubinka in 1939, with the heavier A-32 proving to be as mobile as the A-20. A still heavier version of the A-32, with 45 mm (1.77 in) of front armour, wider tracks, and a newer L-11 76.2 mm gun, was approved for production as the T-34. Koshkin chose the name after the year 1934, when he began to formulate his ideas about the new tank, and to commemorate that year's decree expanding the armoured force and appointing Sergo Ordzhonikidze to head tank production.[20]

Valuable lessons from Lake Khasan and Khalkhin Gol regarding armour protection, mobility, quality welding, and main guns were incorporated into the new T-34 tank, which represented a substantial improvement over the BT and T-26 tanks in all four areas.[21] Koshkin's team completed two prototype T-34s in January 1940. In April and May, they underwent a grueling 2,000-kilometre (1,200 mi) drive from Kharkiv to Moscow for a demonstration for the Kremlin leaders, to the Mannerheim Line in Finland, and back to Kharkiv via Minsk and Kiev.[20] Some drivetrain shortcomings were identified and corrected.[22]

Political pressure came from conservative elements in the army to redirect resources into building the older T-26 and BT tanks, or to cancel T-34 production pending completion of the more advanced T-34M design. This pressure was brought to bear by the developer of the KV-1 and IS-2 tanks, which were in competition with the T-34.

Resistance from the military command and concerns about high production cost were finally overcome by anxieties about the poor performance of Soviet tanks in the Winter War in Finland, and the effectiveness of German tanks during the Battle of France. The first production T-34s were completed in September 1940, completely replacing the production of the T-26, the BT series, and the multi-turreted T-28 medium tank at the KhPZ plant.[23] Koshkin died of pneumonia (exacerbated by the drive from Kharkiv to Moscow) at the end of that month, and the T-34's drivetrain developer, Alexander Morozov, was appointed Chief Designer.[24]

The T-34 posed new challenges for Soviet industry. It had heavier armour than any medium tank produced to date, and there were problems with defective armour plates.[25] Only company commanders' tanks could be fitted with radios (originally the 10-RT 26E radio set), due to their expense and short supply – the rest of the tank crews in each company signalled with flags.[26] The L-11 gun did not live up to expectations, so the Grabin Design Bureau at Gorky Factory N.92 designed a superior F-34 76.2 mm gun (see Designations of Soviet artillery). No bureaucrat would approve production of the new gun, but Gorky and KhPZ started producing it anyway; official permission only came from the State Defense Committee after troops praised the weapon's performance in combat against the Germans.[24]

Production of this first T-34 series – the Model 1940 – totalled only about 400,[27] before production was switched to the Model 1941, with F-34 gun, 9-RS radio set (also installed on the SU-100), and even thicker armour.[28]

After Germany's surprise invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 (Operation Barbarossa), the Wehrmacht's rapid advances forced the evacuation of Soviet tank factories to the Ural Mountains, an undertaking of immense scale and haste that presented enormous logistic difficulties and was extremely punishing to the workers involved. Alexander Morozov personally supervised the evacuation of all skilled engineers and laborers, machinery, and stock from KhPZ to re-establish the factory at the site of the Dzherzhinski Ural Railcar Factory in Nizhny Tagil, renamed Stalin Ural Tank Factory N.183.[30] The Kirovsky Factory, evacuated just weeks before the Germans surrounded Leningrad, moved with the Kharkiv Diesel Factory to the Stalin Tractor Factory in Chelyabinsk, soon to be nicknamed Tankograd ("Tank City"). The workers and machinery from Leningrad's Voroshilov Tank Factory N.174 were incorporated into the Ural Factory and the new Omsk Factory N.174. The Ordzhonikidze Ural Heavy Machine Tool Works (UZTM) in Sverdlovsk absorbed workers and machines from several small machine shops in the path of German forces.

While these factories were being rapidly relocated, the industrial complex surrounding the Dzherzhinski Tractor Factory in Stalingrad continued to work double shifts throughout the period of withdrawal (September 1941 to September 1942) to make up for production lost, and produced 40% of all T-34s during the period.[31] As the factory became surrounded by heavy fighting in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942, the situation there grew desperate: manufacturing innovations were necessitated by material shortages, and stories persist of unpainted T-34 tanks driven out of the factory directly to the battlefields around it.[32] Stalingrad kept up production until September 1942.

Soviet designers were aware of certain design deficiencies in the tank, but most of the desired remedies would have slowed tank production and so were not implemented: the only changes allowed on the production lines through to 1944 were to make production simpler and cheaper. New methods were developed for automated welding and hardening the armour plate, including innovations by Prof. Evgeny Paton.[33] The design of the 76.2 mm F-34 gun Model 1941 was reduced from an initial 861 parts to 614.[34] A somewhat less cramped hexagonal turret was introduced in 1942; because it used flat armour plates rather than curved ones, it was actually faster to produce. Limited rubber supplies led to the adoption of steel-rimmed road wheels, and a new clutch was added to an improved five-speed transmission and engine, improving reliability.[35]

Over two years, the unit production cost of the T-34 was reduced from 269,500 rubles in 1941, to 193,000, and then to 135,000.[34] Production time was cut in half by the end of 1942, even though most experienced factory workers had been sent to the battlefield and were replaced by a mixed workforce that included 50% women, 15% boys, and 15% invalids and old men. Originally "beautifully crafted machines with excellent exterior finish comparable or superior to those in Western Europe or America", later T-34s were much more roughly finished; this did not compromise the mechanical reliability however.[30]

In 1943, T-34 production had reached an average of 1,300 per month; this was the equivalent of three full-strength Panzer divisions.[36] By the end of 1945, over 57,300 T-34s had been built: 34,780 T-34 tanks in multiple variants with 76.2 mm guns in 1940–44,[citation needed] and another 22,609 of the revised T-34-85 model in 1944–45.[37] The single largest producer was Factory N.183 (UTZ), building 28,952 T-34s and T-34-85s from 1941 to 1945. The second-largest was Krasnoye Sormovo Factory N.112 in Gorky, with 12,604 in the same period.[38]

At the start of the war, T-34s were about four percent of the Soviet tank arsenal, but by the end it made up at least 55% of tank production (based on figures from;[39]Zheltov 2001 lists even larger numbers).

Following the end of the war, a further 2,701 T-34s were built prior to the end of Soviet production. Under license, production was restarted in Poland (1951–55) and Czechoslovakia (1951–58), where 1,380 and 3,185 T-34-85s were made, respectively, by 1956.[40] Altogether, as many as 84,070 T-34s are thought to have been built, plus 13,170 self-propelled guns built on T-34 chassis.[41] It was the most-produced tank of the Second World War, and the second most-produced tank of all time, after its successor, the T-54/55 series.[8]

The T-34 had well-sloped armour, a relatively powerful engine, and wide tracks.[26] The initial T-34 version had a powerful 76.2 mm gun, and is often called the T-34/76 (originally a World War II German designation). In 1944, a second major version began production, the T-34-85, with a larger 85 mm gun intended to deal with newer German tanks.[26]

Comparisons can be drawn between the T-34 and the U.S. M4 Sherman tank. Both tanks were the backbone of the armoured units in their respective armies, both nations distributed these tanks to their allies who also used them as the mainstay of their own armoured formations, and both were upgraded extensively and fitted with more powerful guns. Both were designed for mobility and ease of manufacture and maintenance, sacrificing some performance for these goals. Both chassis were used as the foundation for a variety of support vehicles, such as armour recovery vehicles, tank destroyers, and self-propelled artillery. Both were an approximately even match for the standard German medium tank, the Panzer IV, though each of these three tanks had unique advantages and weaknesses compared with the other two. Neither the T-34 nor the M4 were equals to Germany's heavy tanks, the Panther or the Tiger I; the Soviets used the IS-2 heavy tank and the U.S. the M26 Pershing as the heavy tanks of their forces instead.[42]

The T-34 was one of the best protected tanks in the world in 1941. Good armour thickness was enhanced by the sloped armour shape, which provided protection in excess of what armour thickness alone would indicate. Some tanks also had appliqué armour of varying thickness welded on to the hull and turret. Tanks thus modified were called s ekranami (Russian: с экранами, "with screens").[26]

The USSR donated two combat-used Model 1941 T-34s to the United States for testing purposes in late 1942. The examinations, performed at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, revealed problems with overall armour build quality, especially of plate joins and welds, as well as the use of soft steel combined with shallow surface tempering. Leak issues were noted as well: "In a heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition".[44] Earlier models of the T-34, until the Model 1942, had cast turrets whose armour was softer than that of the other parts of the tank, and offered poor resistance even to 37 mm anti-aircraft shells.

Despite these deficiencies, the T-34's armour proved problematic for the Germans in the initial stages of the war on the Eastern Front. In one wartime account, a single T-34 came under heavy fire upon encountering one of the most common German anti-tank guns at that stage of the war: "Remarkably enough, one determined 37 mm gun crew reported firing 23 times against a single T-34 tank, only managing to jam the tank’s turret ring."[45] Similarly, a German report of May 1942 noted the ineffectiveness of their 50 mm gun as well, noting that "Combating the T-34 with the 5 cm KwK tank gun is possible only at short ranges from the flank or rear, where it is important to achieve a hit as perpendicular to the surface as possible."[27] However, a Military Commissariat Report of the 10th Tank Division, dated 2 August 1941 reported that the frontal armor could be effectively defeated within 300-400 m by the 37 mm Pak 36's armour-piercing shot.[46][47] According to an examination of damaged T-34 tanks in several repair workshops in August to September 1942, collected by the People's Commissariat for Tank Industry in January 1943, 54.3% of all T-34 losses were caused by the German long-barreled 50 mm KwK 39 gun.[48][49]

As the war went on, the T-34 gradually lost some of its initial advantage. By the end of 1943, it had become a relatively easy target for German 75 mm-armed tanks and anti-tank guns, while hits from 88 mm-armed Tigers, anti-aircraft guns, and PaK 43 anti-tank guns usually proved lethal.[50] A Wa Pruef 1 report estimated, that with the target angled 30° sideward a Panther tank could penetrate the turret of a T-34-85 from the front at ranges up to 2000 m, the mantlet at 1200 m and the frontal hull armour at 300 m.[51] According to the Pantherfibel, the T-34's glacis could be penetrated from 800 m and the mantlet from 1500 m at 30° sideward angle. [52] However, ground trials composed by employees of NIBTPoligona in May 1943 reported, that the KwK 36 gun could pierce the T-34 frontal hull from 1500 metres at 90 degrees and causing disastrous burst effect inside the tank. The examined hull showed various cracks, spalling and delamination due to the poor quality of the armor. It was recommended to increase and improve the quality of welds and armor.[53]

The F-34 76.2 mm (3 in) gun, fitted on the vast majority of T-34s produced through to the beginning of 1944, was able to penetrate any early German tank's armour at normal combat ranges. When firing APCR shells, it could pierce 92 mm of armour at 500 m.[54] The best German tanks of 1941, the Panzer III and Panzer IV, had no more than 50 or 60 mm frontal armour.[55] The F-34 also fired an adequate high explosive round.

The gun sights and range finding for the F-34 main gun (either the TMFD-7 or the PT4-7[56]) were rather crude, especially compared to those of their German adversaries, affecting accuracy and the ability to engage at long ranges.[57] As a result of the T-34's two-man turret, weak optics, and poor vision devices, the Germans noted:

T-34s operated in a disorganised fashion with little coordination, or else tended to clump together like a hen with its chicks. Individual tank commanders lacked situational awareness due to the poor provision of vision devices and preoccupation with gunnery duties. A tank platoon would seldom be capable of engaging three separate targets, but would tend to focus on a single target selected by the platoon leader. As a result T-34 platoons lost the greater firepower of three independently operating tanks.[58]

The Germans also noted the T-34 was very slow to find and engage targets, while their own tanks could typically get off three rounds for every one fired by the T-34.[58]

When new German tanks types with thicker armour began appearing in mid-1942, the T-34's 76.2 mm cannon had to fire at their flanks to assure penetration. As a result, the T-34 was upgraded to the T-34-85 model. This model, with its 85 mm (3.35 in) ZiS gun, provided greatly increased firepower compared to the previous T-34/76 gun. The 85 mm gun could penetrate the turret front of a Tiger I tank from 500 m (550 yd) and the drivers front plate "DFP" from 300 m (330 yd) at the side angle of 30 degrees.[59] Against the frontal armour of the Panther at 30 degree sidewards, the T-34-85 could penetrate the non-mantlet of its turret at 500 m (550 yd),[51] meaning even upgraded models of the T-34 usually needed tungsten rounds or had to flank a Panther to destroy it.[60]

The greater length of the 85 mm gun barrel (4.645 meters) made it necessary for crews to be careful not to plough it into the ground on bumpy roads or in combat. A.K. Rodkin commented: "the tank could have dug the ground with it in the smallest ditch. If you fired it after that, the barrel would open up at the end like the petals of a flower." Standard practice when moving the T-34-85 cross-country in non-combat situations was to fully elevate the gun, or reverse the turret.[61]

The T-34 was powered by a Model V-2-34 38.8 L V12Diesel engine of 500 hp (370 kW),[notes 2] giving a top speed of 53 km/h (33 mph). It used the coil-spring Christie suspension of the earlier BT-series tanks, using a "slack track" tread system with a rear-mounted drive sprocket and no system of return rollers for the upper run of track, but dispensed with the heavy and ineffective convertible drive.[26]

During the winter of 1941–42, the T-34 had a marked advantage over German tanks through its ability to move over deep mud or snow without bogging down. The Panzer IV, its closest German equivalent at that time, used an inferior leaf-spring suspension and narrow track that tended to sink in such conditions.[62]

The T-34/76, like many other contemporary tanks, had a two-man turret crew arrangement. This required the tank commander to aim and fire the gun while having to coordinate with other tanks and potentially also being a platoon commander, and proved to be inferior to the three-man (commander, gunner, and loader) turret crews of German Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks, which allowed the tank's commander to concentrate solely on that job.

Early in the war the commander fought at a further disadvantage; the forward-opening hatch and lack of turret cupola forced him to observe the battlefield through a single vision slit and traversable periscope.[63] German commanders liked to fight "heads-up", with their seat raised and having a full field of view – in the T-34/76 this was impossible.[64] Soviet veterans condemned the turret hatches of early models. Nicknamed pirozhok (stuffed bun) because of its characteristic shape, it was heavy and hard to open. The complaints of the crews urged the design group led by Alexander Morozov to switch in August, 1942[65] to using two hatches in the turret.[66]

The loader also had a difficult job due to the lack of a turret basket (a rotating floor that moves as the turret turns); the same fault was present on all German tanks prior to the Panzer IV. The floor under the T-34's turret was made up of ammunition stored in small metal boxes, covered by a rubber mat. There were nine ready rounds of ammunition stowed in racks on the sides of the fighting compartment. Once these initial nine rounds had been used, the crew had to pull additional ammunition out of the floor boxes, leaving the floor littered with open bins and matting and reducing their performance.[67]

The main weakness [of the two-man turret of a T-34 Model 1941] is that it is very tight. The Americans couldn't understand how our tankers could fit inside during a winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets. The electrical mechanism for rotating the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, very overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend replace it with a hydraulic or simply manual system.[44]

The problems created by the cramped T-34/76 turret, known before the war, were fully corrected with the addition of a three-man turret on the T-34-85 in 1944.

The T-34's wide track and good suspension gave it unparalleled cross-country performance. Early in the tank's life, however, this advantage was greatly reduced by the numerous teething troubles the design displayed: a long road trip could be a lethal exercise for a T-34 tank at the start of the war. When in June 1941, the 8th Mechanised Corps of D.I. Ryabyshev marched towards Dubno, the corps lost half of its vehicles. A.V. Bodnar, who was in combat in 1941-42, recalled:

From the point of view of operating them, the German armoured machines were almost perfect, they broke down less often. For the Germans, covering 200 km was nothing, but with T-34s something would have been lost, something would have broken down. The technological equipment of their machines was better, the combat gear was worse.[68]

The tracks of early models were the most frequently repaired part. A.V. Maryevski later remembered:

The caterpillars used to break apart even without bullet or shell hits. When earth got stuck between the road wheels, the caterpillar, especially during a turn – strained to such an extent that the pins and tracks themselves couldn't hold out.[69]

The USSR donated two combat-used Model 1941 T-34s to the United States for testing purposes in late 1942. The examinations, performed at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, highlighted these early faults, which were in turn acknowledged in a 1942 Soviet report on the results of the testing:[44]

The Christie's suspension was tested long time ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected. On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly [unclear word] and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint results from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small-calibre and mortar rounds. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of a poor steel. As a result, they quickly wear and the track often breaks.

Testing at Aberdeen also revealed that engines could grind to a halt from dust and sand ingestion, as the original "Pomon" air filter was almost totally ineffective and had insufficient air-inflow capacity, starving the combustion chambers of oxygen, lowering compression, and thereby restricting the engine from operating at full capacity.[44] The air filter issue was later remedied by the addition of "Cyclone" filters on the Model 1943,[27] and even more efficient "Multi-Cyclone" filters on the T-34-85.[37]

The testing at Aberdeen revealed other problems as well. The turret drive also suffered from poor reliability. The use of poorly machined, low quality steel side friction clutches and the T-34's outdated and poorly manufactured transmission meant frequent mechanical failure occurred and that they "create an inhuman harshness for the driver". A lack of properly installed and shielded radios – if they existed at all – restricted their operational range to under 16 km (9.9 mi).[44]

Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armor, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing (reference to muzzle velocity), speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running.[44]

German training mockup of a T-34 built over a captured Polish TK-3tankette

Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, its invasion of the Soviet Union, on June 22, 1941 with about 3,350 of its 5,640 tanks. The existence of the T-34 proved a psychological shock to German soldiers, who had expected to face an inferior enemy. [70] For the most part these expectations were accurate, but the T-34 was a notable exception, superior to any tank the Germans then had in service. Initially the Wehrmacht had great difficulty destroying T-34s in combat, as standard German anti-tank weaponry proved ineffective against its heavy, sloped armour. The diary of Alfred Jodl seems to express surprise at the appearance of the T-34 in Riga, and Adolf Hitler later said, "If I had known about the Russian tank's strength in 1941 I would not have attacked".[71]

At the start of hostilities, the Red Army had 967 T-34 tanks and 508 KV tanks[72] concentrating them into five[73] of their twenty-nine mechanized corps. In one of the first known encounters against a T-34, it crushed a 37 mm PaK 36, destroyed two Panzer IIs, and left 14 kilometres of destruction in its wake before a howitzer destroyed it at close range.[74] The Germans' standard anti-tank gun, the 37 mm PaK 36, proved to be ineffective against the T-34; the Germans were forced to deploy 105 mm field guns and 88 mm anti-aircraft guns in a direct fire role to stop them.[75]

Burning T-34, Russia, 1941

Despite this, the Soviet corps equipped with these new tanks had lost most of them within weeks.[76] The combat statistics for 1941 show that the Soviets lost an average of over seven tanks for every German tank lost.[77][78] The Soviets lost a total of 20,500 tanks in 1941 (approximately 2,300 of them T-34s, as well as over 900 heavy tanks, mostly KVs).[79] The annihilation of the Soviet tank force was accomplished not only by the glaring disparity in the tactical and strategic skills of the opponents, but also by the mechanical malignancies which infected Soviet tanks of time. [80] Beside the poor state of older tanks, the new T-34s and KVs suffered from teething problems particularly with regard to clutches and transmissions. Mechanical breakdowns accounted for at least 50 per cent of the tank losses in the summer fighting, and recovery or repair equipment was not to be found.[80] The shortage of repair equipment and recovery vehicles led the early T-34s to enter combat carrying a spare transmission on the engine deck.[81]

Other key factors diminishing the initial impact of T-34s on the battlefield were the poor state of leadership, tank tactics, and crew training; these factors were partially consequences of Stalin's purges of the Soviet officer corps in 1937, reducing the army's morale and efficiency.[82] This was aggravated by the loss of many of the best-trained personnel during the Red Army's disastrous defeats in 1941. Typical crews went into combat with only their basic military training plus seventy-two hours of classroom instruction; according to armour historian Steven J. Zaloga:

The weakness of mechanized corps lay not in the design of their equipment, but rather in its poor mechanical state, the inadequate training of their crews, and the abysmal quality of Soviet military leaderships in the first month of the war.[83]

German infantry began receiving increasing numbers of the Pak 40 75 mm as their invasion progressed, which were capable of penetrating the T-34's armour. Larger numbers of the 88 mm Flak guns also arrived, which could easily defeat a T-34 even at long range, though their size and general unwieldiness meant that they were often difficult to move into position in the rough Russian terrain.[84]

In turn, the Soviets began incrementally upgrading the T-34. The Model 1942 featured increased armour and many simplified components. The Model 1943 (confusingly also introduced in 1942) had more armour again, as well as increased fuel capacity and more ammunition. Also added were an improved engine air filter and a new clutch mated to an improved and more reliable five-speed transmission.[43] Finally, the Model 1943 also had a new, slightly roomier (but still two-man) turret of a distinct hexagonal shape that was easier to manufacture, derived from the abandoned T-34M project.[35]

The T-34 was essential in resisting the German summer offensive in 1942, and executing the double encirclement manoeuver that cut off the German Sixth Army at the Battle of Stalingrad in December 1942. The Sixth Army was surrounded, and eventually surrendered in February 1943, a campaign widely regarded as the turning point of the war on the Eastern Front.

In 1943, the Soviets formed Polish and Czech armies-in-exile, and these started to receive the T-34 Model 1943 with a hexagonal turret. Like the Soviet forces themselves, the Polish and Czech tank crews were sent into action quickly with little training, and suffered high casualties.

In July 1943, the Germans launched Operation Citadel, in the region around Kursk, their last major offensive on the Eastern Front in World War II. It was the debut of the Panther tank with the high-velocity 75 mm KwK 42 L/70 gun although they arrived in insignificant numbers with the brunt of the burden carried by the Panzer III, Stug III and Panzer IV. The campaign featured the largest tank battles in history. The high-water mark of the battle was the massive armour engagement at Prokhorovka, which began on July 12, although the vast majority of armour losses were caused by artillery and mines not tanks on both sides.[85] Over 6,000 fully tracked armoured vehicles, 4,000 combat aircraft, and 2 million men are believed to have participated in these battles.

The Soviet high command's decision to focus on one cost-effective design, cutting costs and simplifying production wherever possible while only allowing relatively minor improvements, had proven to be an astute choice for the first two years of the war. However, the battles around Kursk in the summer of 1943 demonstrated that the 76.2 mm gun of the T-34 was no longer as effective as it was in 1941. Soviet tank crews were unable to penetrate the frontal armour of the new German Panther or Tiger I tanks at standard combat ranges without tungsten rounds, and had to rely on tactical skill through flanking maneuvers and combined arms.[85]

After improved German Panzer IVs with the high-velocity 75 mm (2.95 in) gun were encountered in combat in 1942, a project to design an entirely new tank was begun, with the goals of increasing armour protection while adding modern features like a torsion-bar suspension and a three-man turret. This new tank, the T-43, was intended to be a universal tank to replace both the T-34 and the KV-1 heavy tank.[86]

Rear view of a T-34-85 from Factory 174. In the centre is a circular transmission access hatch, flanked by exhaust pipes, MDSh smoke canisters on the hull rear, and extra fuel tanks on the hull sides.

Interior of a T-34-85 viewed from the driver's hatch, showing the ammunition boxes on which the loader had to stand in the absence of a turret basket. In the foreground is the driver's seat. Levers for radiator flaps can be seen on the firewall.

The German Tiger I tank appeared on the Eastern Front in late 1942, as a response to the T-34. Soviet firing tests against a captured Tiger in April 1943 showed that the T-34's 76 mm F-34 tank gun could not penetrate the front of the Tiger I at all, and the side only at very close range. A Soviet 85 mm antiaircraft gun, the 52-K, was found to be most effective out of existing guns against the frontal armour of the Tiger I, and so derivatives of the 52-K were developed for tanks.[87][88] In February of 1944, the T-34 was rearmed with the new long-barreled 85mm S-53 gun and then in mid-1944 with the 85mm ZiS-S-53. The ZiS-S-53 was a modified S-53 designed by the Grabin Design Bureau in order to simplify the gun and reduce its price, while the ballistics of both guns were the same.[89][90] This new gun could penetrate the side armor of the Tiger I from a distance of 800 meters and the turret side from a distance of 600 meters. It was still not enough to match the Tiger, as the Tiger could destroy the T-34 from a distance of 1,500 to 2,000 meters. [89]

Despite improvements, the T-43 prototype's heavier armour was still not proof against the Tiger's 88 mm (3.46 in) gun, while the prototype's mobility was found to be inferior to the T-34. Although the T-43 shared over 70% of its components with the T-34, manufacturing it would still have required a significant slow-down in production, even before installing the heavier 85 mm gun.[86] Consequently, the T-43 was cancelled.

The failure of the T-43 project left the Red Army without the upgrade to the T-34/76 it desired. The Soviet command then made the difficult decision to retool the factories to produce an improved version of the T-34, with a turret ring enlarged from 1,425 mm (56 in) to 1,600 mm (63 in), allowing a larger turret to be fitted (and thus a larger gun). The T-43's turret design was hurriedly adapted by Vyacheslav Kerichev at the Krasnoye Sormovo Factory to fit the T-34.[91] This was seen as a compromise between advocates for the T-43, and others in the high command who wanted to continue to build as many 76 mm-armed T-34s as possible without interruption. The resulting new T-34-85 had the 85 mm gun and, finally, a three-man turret with radio (previously in the hull). Now the commander needed only to command the tank, leaving the operation of the gun to the gunner and the loader.[92]

The improved T-34-85 became the standard Soviet medium tank, with an uninterrupted production run until the end of the war. A T-34-85 initially cost about 30 percent more to produce than a Model 1943, at 164,000 rubles; by 1945 this had been reduced to 142,000 rubles.[93] During the course of the Great Patriotic War the cost of a T-34 tank was reduced by almost half, from 270,000 rubles in 1941,[93] while in the meantime its top speed remained about the same, and its main gun's armour penetration and turret frontal armour thickness both nearly doubled.[94]

The T-34-85 gave the Red Army a tank with better armour and mobility than the German Panzer IV tank and Sturmgeschütz III assault gun, though it could not match the Panther's armour nor its 7.5 cm KwK 42 gun. However, the improved firepower made it much more effective against Panthers than earlier models. In comparison with the T-34-85 program, the Germans instead chose an upgrade path based on the introduction of completely new, expensive, heavier, and more complex tanks, greatly slowing the growth of their tank production and allowing the Soviets to maintain a substantial numerical superiority in tanks.[95] By May 1944, T-34-85 production had reached 1,200 tanks per month.[96] In the entire war, production figures for all Panther types reached no more than 6,557, and for all Tiger types 2,027.[97] Production figures for the T-34-85 alone reached 22,559.

Just after midnight on August 9, 1945, under cover of a torrential downpour and through terrain believed by the Japanese to be impassable by armoured formations, the Soviet Union invaded Japanese-occupied Manchuria. Red Army combined-arms forces achieved complete surprise and used a powerful, deep-penetrating attack in a classic double encirclement pattern, spearheaded by the T-34-85. The opposing Japanese forces had been reduced as elite units had been drawn off to other fronts and the remaining forces were in the middle of redeployment to form a defence-in-depth. The few Japanese tanks remaining to face them were mainly Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tanks, whose low-velocity 57 mm gun was no match for them; and the Japanese had no artillery larger than 75 mm, no modern anti-tank weapons, and weak support from IJAAF forces, engineering, and communications. Japanese forces were overwhelmed though some put up resistance. The U.S. dropped the second atomic bomb on August 9, and the Japanese emperor transmitted a surrender order on August 14 but the Kwangtung Army was not given a formal cease fire until August 17.[98]

Many Soviet-client and former Soviet-client states used T-34-85s after the end of World War II. A full brigade equipped with about 120 North Korean T-34-85s spearheaded the invasion of South Korea in June 1950. Additional T-34 tanks later joined the first assault force after it had penetrated into South Korea.[99] The North Korean tanks had overwhelming early successes against South Korean infantry, Task Force Smith, and U.S. M24 Chaffee light tanks. The World War II-era 2.36-inch bazookas used by the Americans were useless against the T-34s,[100] as were the 75 mm cannons of the M24 Chaffee.[101]

The North Korean T-34s lost their momentum when they encountered U.S. M26 heavy tanks and ground-attack aircraft, and when the U.S. infantry upgraded their anti-tank weapons to 3.5-inch Super Bazookas hurriedly airlifted from the United States. The M4 Sherman (M4A3E8 model) and British tanks such as the Centurion, Churchill, and Cromwell also entered the war. The tide turned in favour of the United Nations forces in August 1950, when the North Koreans suffered major tank losses during a series of battles in which their foes brought their newer equipment to bear. The U.S. landings at Inchon on September 15 cut off the North Korean supply lines, causing their armoured forces and infantry to run out of fuel, ammunition, and other supplies. As a result, the North Koreans had to retreat, and many T-34s and heavy weapons were abandoned. By the time the North Koreans had fled from the South, a total of 239 T-34s and 74 SU-76s had been lost.[100] After November 1950, North Korean armour was rarely encountered.[102]

A few more tank engagements occurred when China entered the conflict in February 1951 with four regiments of tanks (a mix of mostly T-34-85 tanks, a few IS-2 tanks, and other AFVs). However, because these tanks were dispersed with the infantry, tank to tank battles with UN forces were uncommon.[103] China produced T-34 tanks under the designation Type 58, though production soon stopped when the Type 59 became available.

A 1954 survey concluded that there were in all 119 tank vs. tank actions involving U.S. Army and Marine units during the Korean War, with 97 T-34-85 tanks knocked out and another 18 probable. The M4A3E8 was involved in 50% of the tank actions, the M26 in 32%, and the M46 in 10%.[104] The M26 and M46 proved to be an overmatch for the T-34-85 as their 90 mm HVAP round could punch all the way through the T-34 from the front glacis armour to the back,[105] whereas the T-34-85 had difficulty penetrating the armour of the M26 or the M46.[106] The M4A3E8, firing 76 mm HVAP rounds, was a closer match to the T-34-85 as both tanks could destroy each other at normal combat ranges; however, the HVAP round gave the M4A3E8 an advantage in penetration.[106][107]

The Soviet and Finnish armies used T-34s until the 1960s; the former included the 76.2 mm-armed versions until at least 1968, when they were used in filming the sequel to the movie The Alive and the Dead. The Finnish tanks were captured from the attacking Soviets or trophies purchased from Germany. Many of the Т-34-85s were enhanced with Finnish or Western equipment, such as improved optics.[108]

A Bosnian Serb Army T-34-85 with added rubber plates as additional armour near Doboj, early 1996.

In 1944, pre-war development of a more advanced T-34 tank was resumed, leading to the T-44. The new tank had a turret design based on the T-34-85's, but featured a new hull with torsion-bar suspension and transversely mounted engine; it had a lower profile than the T-34-85 and was simpler to manufacture. Between 150 and 200 of these tanks were built before the end of the war. With substantial drivetrain changes, a new turret, and 100 mm gun, it became the T-54, starting production in 1947.[113]

As of 2012, the T-34 is mostly in reserve, used in a light tank role, or treated as an infantry backup. In some Third World countries, it is also considered a secondary or even primary tank where more modern tank designs have not entered service yet.[117][118]

Red = former operators
Black = current operators
Pink = recent operators; uncertain if still using

A T-34-85 tank monument in the East German city of Karl-Marx-Stadt (Chemnitz) became the target of a 1980 bomb-attack that inflicted minor damage on the vehicle and blew out nearby windows. The bomber, Josef Kneifel, was sentenced to life imprisonment in Bautzen, but was released after a deal with the West German government in 1987. After German unification in 1990, the tank was transferred to a museum in Ingolstadt.[119][120]

Another such tank, mounted atop the monument to Soviet tank crews in Prague, was the focus of significant controversy. The monument, also known locally as 'Saint Tank,' intended to represent Lt I.G. Goncharenko's T-34-85, the first Soviet tank to enter Prague in May 1945, actually bore an IS-2m heavy tank. To many in Prague, the tank was also a reminder of the Soviet invasion which ended the Prague Spring of 1968. The tank was painted pink by artist David Černý in 1991. Following an official protest from the Russian government, the arrest of Černý, a coat of official green paint, public demonstrations, and a further coat of pink paint applied by fifteen parliamentary deputies, the tank was finally removed to a military museum.[121][122]

In Budapest on 23 October 2006, the 2006 protests in Hungary climaxed during the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Protesters managed to start an unarmed T-34 tank which was part of a memorial exhibit, and used it in riots against police forces. The tank drove a few hundred metres, then stopped in front of the police, causing no personal injury.[124]

There were two main production families of the T-34, each with subvariants. Identification of T-34 variants can be complicated. Turret castings, superficial details, and equipment differed between factories; new features were added in the middle of production runs, or retrofitted to older tanks; damaged tanks were rebuilt, sometimes with the addition of newer-model equipment and even new turrets.[26]

The Red Army never had a consistent policy for naming the T-34.[125] Since at least the 1980s however, many academic sources (notably, AFV expert Steven Zaloga) have used Soviet-style nomenclature: T-34 for the models armed with 76.2 mm guns, and T-34-85 for models armed with 85 mm guns, with minor models distinguished by year, as T-34 Model 1940. Some Russian historians use different names: they refer to the first T-34 as the T-34 Model 1939 instead of 1940, all T-34s with the original turret and F-34 gun as Model 1941 instead of Models 1941 and 1942, and the hexagonal-turret T-34 as Model 1942 instead of 1943.[126]

German military intelligence in World War II referred to the two main production families as T-34/76 and T-34/85, with subvariants receiving letter designations such as T-34/76A — this nomenclature has been widely used in the West, especially in popular literature. When the German Wehrmacht used captured T-34s, it designated them Panzerkampfwagen T-34(r), where the "r" stood for russisch ("Russian").[127] The Finns referred to the T-34 as the Sotka, after the Common Goldeneye, a sea duck, because the side silhouette of the tank resembled a swimming waterfowl. The T-34-85 was called pitkäputkinen Sotka ("long-barreled Sotka").[128]

Captured T-34 Model 1943 tanks pressed into service with the Wehrmacht.

T-34-85 on display in Israel.

The T-34 (German designation: T-34/76) was the original tank with a 76.2 mm gun in a two-man turret.

Model 1943 (T-34/76D, E, and F): Introduced May 1942 (not 1943). More ammunition and fuel, very minor armour increase.[43] New hexagonal turret, nicknamed "Mickey Mouse" by the Germans because of its appearance with the twin, round turret-roof hatches open. Later production had a new commander's cupola.

The T-34-85 (German designation: T-34/85) was a major improvement with an 85 mm gun in a three-man turret. All T-34-85 models are externally very similar.

Model 1943: Short production run of February–March 1944 with D-5T 85 mm gun.

Model 1944: Produced from March 1944 through to the end of that year, with simpler ZiS-S-53 85 mm gun, radio moved from the hull into a turret with improved layout and new gunner's sight.

Model 1945: Produced from 1944 to 1945, with an electrically powered turret traverse motor, an enlarged commander's cupola with a one-piece hatch, and the TDP smoke system with electrically detonated MDSh canisters.

Model 1946: Production model with the improved V-2-34M engine, new wheels, and other minor details.

Model 1960: A refurbishing program introduced a new V-2-3411 engine and other modernizations.

The T-34 and T-34-85 had enormous numbers produced, the Soviets used them aggressively in campaigns in Europe and Asia, and they were distributed to the Soviets' allies all over the world. Due to all three factors there are hundreds of surviving T-34s. Examples of this tank are in the collections of most significant military museums, and hundreds more serve as war memorials. Many are in private ownership, and demilitarised working tanks change hands for U.S. $20,000–40,000. Some still may serve in a second-line capacity in a number of Third World militaries, while others may find use in a civilian capacity, primarily in film making. In many World War II films, such as Saving Private Ryan,[134]The Battle of Neretva, and Kelly's Heroes,[135] T-34-85 tanks were modified to resemble Tiger I tanks, due to the rarity of the latter vehicle.[134]

In 2000, a T-34 Model 1943 was recovered that had spent 56 years at the bottom of a bog in Estonia.[136] The tank had been captured and used by retreating German troops, who dumped it in the swamp when it ran out of fuel. The anaerobic environment of the bog preserved the tank and ensured there were no signs of oil leakage, rust, or other significant water damage. The engine was restored to full working order.[137][138]

^Due to a shortage of new Model V-2-34 diesel engines and a need to produce as many T-34s as possible, the initial production run from the Gorky factory were equipped with the BT tank's Mikulin M-17 gasoline aircraft engine, and inferior transmission and clutch. (Zheltov 2001:40–42)

^The name of the T-34's engine (V-2; B-2 in Russian) is a model name, and has nothing to do with its number of cylinders.

Gander, Terry, and Peter Chamberlain. Weapons of the Third Reich: An Encyclopedic Survey of All Small Arms, Artillery and Special Weapons of the German Land Forces 1939-1945. New York: Doubleday, 1979 ISBN 0-385-15090-3.